I want to get in on that statement also. I know more scripture than the average person, but there is a great deal of church / religious history I know little of.

Not us lay people are alone on that either. You talk to people who have spent their whole life studying Religion/Philosophy (you know the kind who have forgotten more on the subject than you'll ever know) and they'll tell you they feel the same way. There's just to much out there too know. The most intelligent person you'll ever meet is the one who not only knows the most, but will also admit their ignorance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ward

Isaiah was a book written by men, not (a) god. I still don't understand a universe with an all knowing and powerful god leaves room for free will.

Agian, no theologian but... I think According to Christian dogma it may be argued that Man may have authored the book, but God authored man and creation (nature). So in a sense, essentially he wrote it?

__________________
What do the vikings and marijuana have in common? Every time you put them in a bowl
they get smoked.

I can debunk your intentions of that pic/quote from a historical perspective...
Epicurus is from the 3rd century BC, therefore he's not talking about a Christian ( probably not even a monotheistic) God, which didn't come around until hundreds of years later.

__________________
What do the vikings and marijuana have in common? Every time you put them in a bowl
they get smoked.

I can debunk your intentions of that pic/quote from a historical perspective...
Epicurus is from the 3rd century BC, therefore he's not talking about a Christian ( probably not even a monotheistic) God, which didn't come around until hundreds of years later.

That is not true the Christian god is the same as the Jewish god.

__________________
Stafford Sig by touchdownrams the rest of the sig by Sig Master Bone Krusher Avy by King of all avys renji

I can debunk your intentions of that pic/quote from a historical perspective...
Epicurus is from the 3rd century BC, therefore he's not talking about a Christian ( probably not even a monotheistic) God, which didn't come around until hundreds of years later.

So he proved it wrong before it was even invented! Even more brilliant! Although monotheism was around before Epicurus.

Do a little more reading on Epicureanism, it's not a atheistic belief. When you take a quote like that out of context it can look like it is.

"Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of Epicurus (c. 341–c. 270 BC), founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention."

Agian, no theologian but... I think According to Christian dogma it may be argued that Man may have authored the book, but God authored man and creation (nature). So in a sense, essentially he wrote it?

According to reality, the book was written by men who may have believed that their god inspired them to do so. I am not dismissing the Bible as useless, but it certainly demands perspective.

"Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of Epicurus (c. 341–c. 270 BC), founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention."

Sounds like atheism to me?

Did you just quote wiki?Ha, well might as well read the rest if that's your source than.

Quote:

Epicurus' view was that there were gods, but that they were neither willing nor able to prevent evil. This was not because they were malevolent, but because they lived in a perfect state of ataraxia, a state everyone should strive to emulate; it is not the gods who are upset by evils, but people.[2] Epicurus conceived the gods as blissful and immortal yet material beings made of atoms inhabiting the metakosmia: empty spaces between worlds in the vastness of infinite space. In spite of his recognition of the gods, the practical effect of this materialistic explanation of the gods' existence and their complete non-intervention in human affairs renders his philosophy akin in divine effects to the attitude of Deism.

__________________
What do the vikings and marijuana have in common? Every time you put them in a bowl
they get smoked.

Ok, so it been awhile since I took my intro to classical philosophy, so my ability to pretend like i know everything because I once heard a lecture on the subject is lacking at the moment.

Thankfully though, his quote still align in order to disprove the Christian belief in god, so hurray! That is what we are talking about im guessing? I didn't really bother to read a single post before my posts on dinosaurs.

Thankfully though, his quote still align in order to disprove the Christian belief in god, so hurray! That is what we are talking about im guessing? I didn't really bother to read a single post before my posts on dinosaurs.

I never liked the "is man inherently good or evil", mostly because I'm not sure man is inherently anything before he starts to interact with the world and so long as you look at the examples that history provide us, man seems to have defined and re-defined the meaning of those two polar concepts many times. If we're equally capable of both in their extreme, then we are nothing more than beings capable of the explicit and informed choice (we are free). Even if a God did create us (or create the process by which life was born), it would appear he's created an organic and free process. Good enough?

I think that man is inherently good, the problem is that good is defined by society, not some inherent thing within humans.

For instance... Michael Vick is "bad/evil" in American Society for the whole dogfighting saga. In many countries throughout the world, this would not have made Michael Vick a "bad/evil" human. In this case, by doing something against social norms he has become bad, not through actually doing something evil in and of itself.

Another example of this is paedophilia. It was perfectly normal up until about 200 years ago for men to marry women when they came of age(ie 12ish), hell it still is in some countries today. Nowadays you are the most evil of scum if you are to sleep with someone under 15 or so. If you were Roman or Greek when they ruled the world, you would be perfectly normal. So now doing something that is normal, is in fact bad.

Society has basically made the "bad/evil" side of humans. By fighting or trying to control the laws of nature we create bad humans. For instance, survival of the fit, we do everything we can to thwart it and undo it, hell someone who makes a medical breakthrough that does just this is a hero/good person, even though as a result of their actions they are making the human race weaker by continuing the genetics of weaker humans.

So, imo, humans are inherently good, the stripping of free will by society creates the badness.

Charisma and charm are for the most part synonyms now, but historically charisma's etymology can be traced back to a German word used to describe a person with the gift of leadership and later took on the connotation of exhibiting personal charm. The verb form of charm is used more than the noun form however, and vice versa for charisma. Charisma is a noun used to describe an intangible quality and charismatic is an adjective used to describe an act. The English language is constantly evolving, it's barely recognizable from the English of 100-150 years ago.

Of course charisma exists because there is a word for it. Kenneth Burke says humans are "symbol using animals" and that we language things into being.

You can't look at it that way. I say what about a centaur? does he exist because the word exists? surely a little weird analogy, but just because there is the word charisma, doesnt mean it describes something that is really there. Charisma is a word for things that draw people in but they dont know what it is. They tend to say, well thats just charisma. but it really isnt. it is like i said, their appearance, their gentleness or whatnot what draws them in.

you hear people use Charisma as a reason. as if it was some magic that draws u into something. People voted for Hitler because he was charismatic. That is ********. they voted for him because he said things that the people believed in straight forward. people voted for him because they agreed with him.
Charisma is a word, yes. But is not something i can see that is found in a person. It is just a word for something people like in another person but cant really describe what it is. But that other thing is there. Way someone talks etc etc. So looking at it from that point, there is no real charisma found in a person.

That's like saying there is no such thing as a cake, since cake is made of flour, eggs milk, etc. Charisma is the combination and perception of all those characteristics you can name that "draws you in'.

That's like saying there is no such thing as a cake, since cake is made of flour, eggs milk, etc. Charisma is the combination and perception of all those characteristics you can name that "draws you in'.

but if you talk about cake. its usually the same.

Charisma is different. its like saying, eggs flour milk...are all cake

I say what about a centaur? does he exist because the word exists? surely a little weird analogy, but just because there is the word charisma, doesnt mean it describes something that is really there.

Of course a centaur exists. It doesn't exist in the real world, but it sure as hell exists in story books and what-not. Are we excepted not to have words for things that are in story books?

You may of course reply that maybe charisma doesn't exist in the real world and just in our imaginations, but all the examples of charisma are in the real world. Since it's really just a word for a noteworthy combination of emotions and attitudes, it's pretty easy to say it exists. We may debate the parameters of the definition (is that person being charismatic right now?) but that's a different question.